What the client wants Vs. Cool images

[Marco Manunta]

Hi there,

 

maybe it's a stupid question but i'm curious to know one thing about our archiviz profession.

 

i'm referring to the top-notch archivisualizer that we have in this forum..what is the relationship between the images that you post/share in forums like this one, and the final result of the same image that you delivered to the client?

 

Example:

When we see a personal project, everybody goes hyper-realistic, SCI-Fi, rain falling down everywhere, winter is coming with tons of snowflakes, nature is the law baby, etc etc

 

But when it's not a personal project, is the image that you post exactly the same that you delivered to the client ?

 

In my little experience (one year and half) i found so hard to find clients who would push myself to the limits. The 3D model changes everytime, even the day before the final deliver because they decided to lower the wall, to add a window, to change a material. Then, they seem afraid of the cool atmospheric filter (rain, autumn, snow, fairy tales) they always want standard lights, standard skies, standard people etc etc.

 

the final result is not something so cool like the images that you see here in this forum. I always need to make at least another hour of post production to reach at least the minimum standards of a cool atmospheric image.

 

I don't like all the final image that i deliver, i need to push them a little bit further by myself after the mission is accomplished. I don't say that hyper-atmospheric images are way better than standard one, the most important thing is that the client is happy. It's only that it seems like if i don't have a lot of space to express myself when i work for architects (and building promoters like in this case are worse!!)

 

Is this happening to you too ?

Edited June 6, 2015 by marcomanunta

[Scott Schroeder]

Here's the thing we have to remember when trying to push the creative bounds. When creating an image for a developer who will in turn, use that image to sell his property, you need to play to the middle of the spectrum. You don't know if the potential buyer is hyper liberal, uber conservative, or somewhere in between those two. To reach the widest possible audience you need to have the safest image possible.

 

The one with the leaves on the ground makes me think that the property either doesn't have landscapers or they employ the laziest ones around. It makes the space appear unkempt and dirty. That's what might go through the mind of a potential buyer. The reason why it stand out to me as someone with an experience eye for renderings, you have super green trees with brown dead leaves on the ground. Your bloom doesn't make sense as to why it would be there. Things just feel put there for no real reason other than to try to add some mystery to the image.

 

Once you establish yourself in the industry you gain more of an advantage to push the stranger atmospheric type images. But even then, you have to use atmospherics in a way that feels right, not just slapped in there because you feel the need to. You don't go all JJ Abrams and slap lens flares on every light source just because you have the ability to do so in post production. To be successful at using atmospherics you need to make sure that the end viewer can hardly notice them and give them the sense that those atmospheric extras actually belong in the image. If one thing looks off and out of place, they will rip the image apart. The public is very accustomed to seeing CG imagery in their daily lives and they know what looks right and what doesn't. Even if they can't explain why it doesn't look right.

 

This is why there are only a small handful of artist who can actually pull these types of images off in a convincing to the general (often old fuddy-duddy man) client/public eye. You also have to have part used-car salesman in you. You can't just let the client choose. You need to get on your soapbox and sell, sell, sell the client on why they should go the more creative route.

 

The client has the money so they are generally always right, even when they are stupid and uncreatively wrong. You won't always like the image you deliver. I would say a conservative estimate would be that I would only show maybe 10-15% of all the work I've done over the past 14 years. Sometimes you get to be creative, most of the time you need to deliver work to pay the bills.

Edited June 5, 2015 by VelvetElvis

[Marco Manunta]

Scott you're totally right. And it's really interesting to know that you keep a good 80% of your works in the basement..

 

then there are also some big archiviz firms (i speak about the biggest firm in Paris) that receive the 3D, make two tests, one for the point of view and one maybe just for the brightness of the metal, and then they deliver directly the final image + a very expensive bill..i guess that some clients says "ehi, you're the best, make whatever you want, me and my wallet are yours!" (it's really rare indeed) ;)

[Francisco Penaloza]

As Scott mentioned, it is up to you too to teach your client or guide your client to get the best product. To be honest, sometimes I feel very tired of seeing the same image here or in every visualization website, they are all clones images of Bertrand, Guthrie and all those height end artist. I see too many people looking for photo-realism and not thinking in how to make a good image. PHotoreal images can be a very bad decision for a project believe me. They are 2 different things.

When a person come to me and ask for a render or renders I study the building and try to show the best of it, try to display the design and features of the building and how it will work with the people. I am not trying to show off depth of field or muted colors technique.

when you can express with an image the concept of design of that building or project, then your client will love the image. If you are just worried of technique, you won't do a good visualization, and the client will bug you for the color not being right, they'll as for more people, and want the image to POP!!

 

Regarding big studios and freelancer, there is a big difference in clients too. When some hire Neoscape or MIR they know what they will get, they go there because they like that company look. When they hire Chen or Juan renderings, they just need a rendering to put in a board or because the city is asking for it, then they will try to get the most out of what they are paying for, that really limit your creativity expression. When you gain more experience you'll learn how to produce good work without selling your soul

[RyderSK]

I would subscribe under everything Scott said five times.

 

What a lot of 3D "artists" think is "cool"/"atmospheric", is often distasteful, and downright doesn't work for the architecture, or given purpose of the image (to communicate the space and sell the property to layman).

 

Or they just want to take signature style from different studio for different project (for example MIR and scandinavian competition) and just slap it on whatever the f*ck comes down their way. Even if that something happens to be suburb house.

 

The big problem is, there is nothing boring or plain looking about 'silent', sunny day atmosphere, as taken by DSLR of random passerby. Everything is about execution. Only if the image is plainly failing to look good and communicate clearly the point, do mediocre artists try to slap whatever they feel might salvage it.

 

It's like overcooking rotten meat and thinking ton of sauce will make it taste better.

And then they wonder how come client doesn't like it. Mystery worth of Sherlock Holmes.

[RyderSK]

Also, the 10-15perc. of work being published sounds right for me. Might be even less. Sometimes it's unnecessary to even post similar projects if the one that's online is representative enough/best of what you offer. Single good project can provide you work for years.. to point, where you don't even bother posting anything at all.

Overbloated portfolios are worst. No one is interested in seeing 7000 differently done residences..

 

Faking commercial work to appear better online after it's been delivered....needless. Work with clients who are on same boat with your style and vision (not hard at all these days given the large amount of market), deliver your best, and you have the same quality of work you would do as hobby.

[Marco Manunta]

wait wait guys, we're loosing the track of this thread. Juraj you took twenty step farther.

 

first of all sorry. I made suicide of myself by publishing and telling you that my client chose the less atmospheric one between my images. I'll say the truth, i cheated. I never asked the client to choose one of the two images, i just delivered the normal one and it went fine. Then i played a little bit with post production and i made the other one which i find ok, or at least better than the other. Sorry, but it's way easier to criticize somebody else work if this guy tells that his client didn't choose an image. Anyway sorry again for that, my fault.

 

1) My question was: did your final delivered images are the same that you publish/share or normally before put your work in the mainstream you try to pimp the image up a little more? this was what i wanted to know. stop.

 

2) I don't know what's up with you when you say that there are plenty of Peter Guthrie/MIR/Benoit groupies around the world who tries to emulate instead of create, feel their image etc etc. Everybody steal something from the masters. It's the history of man, the history of art. Sorry but in your works (which, by the way, are really cool) i don't find elements so unique that justify your sentences. Most of you are in a really big "plateau" (David F. Wallace quote) of outstanding images, which melt themselves with others cool images in a behance dashboard. It doesn't make any sense to say that people copy and paste Peter Guthrie to whatever come down in their way. If an image is bulls**t there is no Peter Guthrie pasted at all even if he used his skies. It's just bulls**t. I don't see any PG in it.

 

3) There are plenty of ways to see the same project. If someone decide to put fairy tales instead of a daily sunny day, it's up to him. He has the right to see something that another guy would have putted in a shiny summer midday. Both are good and would not be distasteful. Our goal is to be able to manage every situation the best that we can.

 

Anyway, the holy truth is Scott quote "The client has the money so they are generally always right, even when they are stupid and uncreatively wrong. You won't always like the image you deliver. I would say a conservative estimate would be that I would only show maybe 10-15% of all the work I've done over the past 14 years. Sometimes you get to be creative, most of the time you need to deliver work to pay the bills."

[daisysadaisy]

The big problem is, there is nothing boring or plain looking about 'silent', sunny day atmosphere, as taken by DSLR of random passerby. Everything is about execution. Only if the image is plainly failing to look good and communicate clearly the point, do mediocre artists try to slap whatever they feel might salvage it.

[Scott Schroeder]

To answer your main question. In general, I don't touch final images after they are done to post them on my personal websites or portfolio. If I do make adjustments, it is always spending a bit more time on color balancing and the small adjustments that usually get lost in the end of project time crunch. If you compare the 2 you may see colors blending together better in my personal-final image versus the client final image, but you won't see any medium to major differences.

 

The reasons I don't make major adjustments to the image are simple.

 

1. I'm usually sick of the project by the end and I really don't want to see it again.

 

2. The very slight, like .000001%, chance that my updated slick image gets seen and compared to the original image. In the case of marketing, this could cause issues with why does one image look vastly different than the other. You see this with architecture firms that might do awesome work for a particular building competition but bury that work if they are not chosen. You don't want conflicting images out there about the same project. Like I said, this is an extremely rare occurrence and your images probably will never cross paths, but for me it's safer to just keep those images locked to personal viewing and not for public viewing.

[Justin Hunt]

There have been a few occasions where I have decided to go over board and do really atmospheric images, to take the pi$$ of of the project. What surprises me more often than not is that the clients have reacted more positively to these than I would have first expected.

 

There are other projects that I would be hung, drawn and quartered if I even thought about doing anything artsy.

 

As for retouching projects after the fact, if I have down time then yes I will revisit them, more to try and achieve what I was first envisioning but for what ever reason didn't achieve. Or to try out a different technique. Sadly these hardly ever see the light of day. On occasion these projects fire up again and that's when I incorporate the new tweaks and twiddles.

 

It is good to have a play sometimes, it can lead to good things.

[CliveG]

+1

 

if I have time I will always try and improve a project after it's been delivered. My deadlines are usually so tight that I hit the finish line at full speed and so it's good to be able to breathe and do a bit of a de-brief (or post mortem autopsy) afterwards to see how I could have delivered that project better within the same timeframe. Of course if I had plenty of time on all projects then I could do this within the normal project workflow, but I usually have one shot at delivering something and only get to improve my skills by revisiting it all afterwards. I don't have time for personal projects, but I can find a few hours after delivery of a live project to investigate how to improve next time.

 

What I seldom do is mess about with artsy atmospherics etc. as Scott said and most here know, the client is always right and so anything 'artsy' I do - has to show their product in a better light - full stop!

[alexbrito]

Fake it until you make it, I'd say... After all, that's what attorney's do, why not designers. If it sells, sells... if it doesn't, pick up the pieces of the puzzle and try again. Generally, we'll have a good or bad feed back from a prospective client when we do a presentation, and based on that feed back you are able to re-design your ideas.

[CliveG]

Fake it until you make it, I'd say... After all, that's what attorney's do.

 

Possibly the very last group of people on this planet I'd use as a role model this side of ISIS would be lawyers / attorneys!!

 

But faking it is what we do, it's our 'raison d'etre'....

[Nic H]

comes down to if its a good image or not...i prefer the 'non atmospheric' imnage posted - the 'atmospheric' one looks weird

 

you need to develop your own style before people will trust you with it

you cant just turn up one day and pretend to be bbb3viz, peter guthrie, MIR etc - that's their look not yours

[Justin Hunt]

I didn't look at your examples before, I have to side with Nic on this one, the flare just doesn't make sense and comes across as a flare for flares sake. I do like the what you did with the path as it adds to the story of the lone guy sitting. I think if you pushed the textures and detail in the building it would really tie everything in.

 

I suppose that kind of highlights how well MIR does atmospheric, there is thought and reason behind the artsy, fartsy treatments, which is what makes it work. Its not a 10 minute photoshop thing, its planned from the beginning, is part of the whole composition and tells the story. At the end of the day regardless of treatment, architectural design or how conservative the client, if you are not telling a clear story, the image is not going to work.

[Marco Manunta]

really interesting answers folks.

 

Yes i think that tight deadlines with a lot of 3D models changing is the main problem to achieve the image that we would like. I never ever had a client that gave me a finished model without any massive change to make. Mostly he tells me to change things also the day before the delivery!

 

It's also true that without tight deadlines we would always seek for perfection and we would never finish But i'm for the "post-mortem autopsy" (super quote!) to get better and better. Then the aim is to find our own style and to sell it as it is. I don't have one at all for the moment and that's a huge problem. It's good to experiment!

 

about my posted images, the atmospheric one didn't want to blink an eye at MIR or stuff like that (not consciously at least)...it's just a little courtyard choked between two identical aluminium buildings, i wanted somehow to stop the moment of peace and silence that makes the man quietly reading his stuff and give to the passage a sort of intimacy. It took me 10 minutes to do it, and immediately i saw an improvement than the "normal" one, too rude, too gray.

[John Dollus]

1) My question was: did your final delivered images are the same that you publish/share or normally before put your work in the mainstream you try to pimp the image up a little more? this was what i wanted to know. stop.

 

i agree with Scott in that I am usually ready to move on by the end of a project but I will add that if a client sees an image of their project that is different than what they paid for, it can cause problems. In cases where the client's desires conflict with my own aspirations for an image, I will generally provide the client with an A/B set for final approval. In most cases, that will put me in the clear for publishing purposes and avoid having to provide work for free after the fact. Look into commercial photography contracts/practices to delve into the issue deeper.

[notamondayfan]

To be honest, what my general approach is to push the more artistic, ambitious, slightly over the top at the start of the project / first drafts, then gauge the clients comments, and draw back the image until the client is happy. I'd rather work this way, than start "dull" and work an image up after the client says "it looks a bit plain / flat".

 

If the client likes to more "arty" drafts, then brilliant, but if they want it toning down, then that's perfectly fine too, they're paying for the work, and it's still up to us to create nice images, whilst still satisfying the client / brief.

 

And don't forget, sometimes less is more!

 

Dean

[Jon Berntsen]

I usually never touch an image after it´s been delivered. Might do it if we´re preparing it for print or to view on a bad old projector, but usually not. Why should I? Feel free to do that and use it in your portfolio, followed by a dissapointed client who never contacts you again.

The first year I was working with this, I tried to be satisfied with every project, with the result that I went home with a bad feeling because I didn´t get satisfied after all. Think beyond that.

 

It´s a mile distance between many projects you see here and in the real client world.

1) You have a dealine. TIGHT.

2) There are changes coming in the last minute, and your image should then be strong enough to stand through the coming changes. If your images breaks because of that design change, then you have been running too free.

3) You are not only going to satisfy the designer´s eye. You are also going to satisfy the technical people. This is a tough one when the ad bureau drags in one direction and the architects drags in a different one. Only experience can get you out of this one.

4) You are running a business or delivering a piece of work in a given amount of time. It´s just not that your client says "you´ve got a week until it´s gonna be in for the ad". That´s fine with some slack, but internally you, your project leader or boss have calculated a price based on a given amount of work hours. You simple don´t have time to adjust to achieve real photorealism with Guthrie style in two days when you are also trying to get everything else right. Maybe you also have a life. Family. Kids. Something that keeps you from working free double days.

5) You know a whole bunch of tools and (scientifical) techniques to get the image look good. So how do you really make an image look good when your client makes it unable to do your tricks? Experience.

6) Reliable hardware to avoid bluescreens and render farm issues. This is best achieved in a place with dedicated IT tech = agencies = again calculated amount of work hours.

 

So just making an image look pretty is awesome, but trying to sell a personal portfolio piece as a reference to a new client, that´s not a smart thing to do, which is what I am talking about regarding the "personal touch" on the project. Remember, it is not your project. If the client was satisfied with it, then that was how the project was going to be showed. A slightly bit of color correction or contrast altering might destroy a certain form or important aspect about that architecture. I´d say show some respect to their project.

 

And I also agree with showing only a fraction of what´s done. I do around 100 projects a year, and let´s say not many of them are being showed to get new clients.

 

Like others say, bright sunny calm day with some attitude to it is really a winner. Because people are so different. I think Scott said that, or who it was. The King. Elvis.

 

However, there is IMO a thing called too much photorealism. Photorealism is dirty. When you are trying to make selling images for a projects, you will have to glorify the project in the correct ways. If you do want to make a moody image, bring it up with some reference images in the briefing meeting with the client. Be sure you are aligned. You might be surprised about what you actually can get him to agree on! A tip: IF he do want the sunny thing, ask if he might be up for an alternate image with your creative mood. Maybe it goes through. There is no more certain waste of time than delivering something that the client did not ask for.

[jensandersen]

Great read there Jon.

 

I'm in the process of starting up freelance, and here I am thinking that I want clients to be attracted to my work, my style, have trust in that I am the professional and I will provide them with the correct solution to their project. I know they will have an opinion and that is fair enough. But do they tell the doctor how to do his job? Do they argue with the mechanic? Some might, but most will not. Why do we allow certain clients to have such a big influence on the work? Are they then "bad" clients or are we the cause by taking on such a client?

 

We all need to pay our bills and I guess that could result in taking on such clients, but as you said, that is work you probably will not show on your site. I think it is important that we present ourselves as professionals and not just technicians who lives by the clients wishes. Nothing wrong in being a technician, but then don't complain about "bad" clients and have fun competing with others on price and not what you really can offer of value to the clients project.

 

Or is my thinking way off?

[Jon Berntsen]

Great read there Jon.

 

I'm in the process of starting up freelance, and here I am thinking that I want clients to be attracted to my work, my style, have trust in that I am the professional and I will provide them with the correct solution to their project. I know they will have an opinion and that is fair enough. But do they tell the doctor how to do his job? Do they argue with the mechanic? Some might, but most will not. Why do we allow certain clients to have such a big influence on the work? Are they then "bad" clients or are we the cause by taking on such a client?

 

We all need to pay our bills and I guess that could result in taking on such clients, but as you said, that is work you probably will not show on your site. I think it is important that we present ourselves as professionals and not just technicians who lives by the clients wishes. Nothing wrong in being a technician, but then don't complain about "bad" clients and have fun competing with others on price and not what you really can offer of value to the clients project.

 

Or is my thinking way off?

 

I disagree with how you are thinking. First of all they wouldnt have hired you if they didnt have to. In the end we cost money for them. We arent the top of the world. They arent here to serve us, we are here to serve them.

 

Then secondly, I think you show one of the most common disastrous mindsets amongst people working with archviz with what you just said. Sorry, I don't mean to be harsh, but seriously? "I know they will have an opinion and that is fair enough.". Come on. And "Why do we allow certain clients to have such a big influence on the work?" Tell me, is this a joke?

 

It is _their_ project, and they dictate how they want you to visualize their project. They have put down a lot of money into hiring the best available architects for their business, and they are not fooling around. What you are supposed to make for them can mean millions of (insert currency) if you don't listen carefully or have learned how to interpret the architect or client you are working for. A small detail can get them sued. Or make them loose the project to a competitor of them. A project is always bigger than you. It is bigger than the architect too, if you find comfort in that. There is always a client behind that again. And behind that again, there is often a government plan or regulation for how the project should be and what it should not be. Some of these architect that has gotten this prestigeous project from their client have gone seven years plus in school with twenty years experience after that, and who are you to ignore the opinions they've got? The opinions they have is actually rules from their clients. You listen, interpret, and do the best out of what you got.

 

HOWEVER, you have fully right to, and actually should question if you see poor designs or strange details. You don't tell them that it is wrong, but just ask what it is, what purpose it has and eventually if it is a bug in the model. Or you can even be bold and ask if it could be an idea to use that fireplace to get more space in the living room, or type of entrance door instead to let in more light. In this example, if the door had no windows in the drawing, it could be that he responds that it is made like that because the project demanded so, or even to actually keep it dark inside there to keep temperature down or whatever. If, and I say if, your client takes you down llike this, you have not much room left to be bold, just keep safe within his limits. Makes sense? All this would be the only way to gain respect amongst your clients. If you are questioning the right things of course. With that you are becoming a professional rather than "tech". The projects you will get is so much more than your final image. It is the architects vision and baby, and it is your job to transform those visions into a nice and selling image (for its purpose). You can still have your signature in your graphics, but you will always need to listen to the client. If the client is vague in his descriptions, then you will have to propose something and get a confirm that it is okay to do it so.

 

The bigger the archviz studios and projects become, the higher the demand of serious professionals who truly respect their clients. The main reason for them being able to put out stunning and "cool" and artistic images is solely because of the 3d guy's (your) ability to understand that specific architects inner dreams and foundational architectural direction so that you are becoming easier aligned, you get rid of misunderstandings, and you get more and more loose descriptions because he simply knows that you are spot on with transferring his concepts into something correct and nice. That said, loose descriptions at first, which might make you able to strech the creativity a little longer, but it is always on your client's premises, and before the image is finished, it has still been judged on the same level as before, because as said earlier, he has clients that has demands too.

 

Sorry about probably going more off topic and for reacting like this, but I think this cannot be left unsaid.

Edited June 19, 2015 by chroma

[jensandersen]

No this is real good Jon, rather you be honest about it. I'm the rookie here, so a reality check from an experienced professional is much appreciated.

 

However, I didn't mean it as to ignore client wishes and act like you are better than them. Of course they wouldn't hire you if they didn't need to. They are hiring you as you can provide them with (hopefully) immense value compared to the price they are paying. If not, they would do it themselves.

 

It is at this point I feel the communication with the client would be most crucial. What are they expecting from you, what do you expect from them (details, info, deadline etc), but most of all what do they want the image to communicate. This is where I would think the difference between being a tech and a professional is defined. You would need to get the expactations nailed down and get the client in on your process. If you are just constantly waiting to be told what to do by the client and how to do it, you are a "tech". Fair enough, I guess most clients are like that and want that in their "3d guy". But if you are good enough (I'm not saying I am at all!), at grasping the architects vision of the project and skillful enough making beautiful images and have case studies /portfolio work to show for it, don't you think you would then attract clients that would see you as a professional and trust your process? See the likes of MIR, Luxigon, Neroscape, The Boundary, Juraj, etc. etc.

Getting to that point will of course take time, but my original post was more on: Isn't taking on "bad" client work when you start out, a bad way to get started? (economical aspects aside).

 

Btw. I'm not trying to piss any one off, I'm just really curious on how people view themselves and their process. I'm still here to learn - maybe this should continue in its own thread?

Edited June 19, 2015 by jensandersen

[Jon Berntsen]

I am probably pissing off more people than you with my post, and even if I have been making architectural illustrations for a living for near a decade, I am a rookie too. There are other people in here who are better qualified for that experieced title.

 

I think it's a common misconception that the big studios can dictate their own directions. But the studios and people you mention have developed a touch over time and is acknowledged for that. But all clients wont come just based on their images. They will come/return because of the process they had in the previous project. Some people will come just because of the renomme of course, and I believe that these people are the clients you don't want to have because they seem to think they can ship away the entire job and just receive the final image without furter notice, and think it will satisfy their powerful clients without having any meetings or midway corrections. And they are blaming you for delivering a nice looking image with detail errors or an originally nice looking image destroyed by last minute critical corrections by your clients client.

 

I for myself am putting down energy in questioning things if I see something strange anytime during a project, because I know my clients pretty well, and also the inhouse architects. This is often how potential "last minutes huge errors" can be avoided and dealt with before it is too late. That is how I learn new methods and architecture, and this helper role is also where I see myself in the big picture.

They really appreciate it if you actually unveil some bugs or bring up some important questions that they didnt think of. Getting them to feel that you are on their side, on their team, that would help you in your process of gaining respect.

 

One time I was bold enough to say to my boss that I saw myself as in the architecture visualization business. That was something I never should have said, because even if we see ourselves as in the archviz business, many of our clients don't recognize it as a business at all. I do not agree with this of course, but I think it sums up our position to our clients. We are vulnerable when they don't even think we need expertise enough to do our job to get categorized as an own branch.

 

Even if it is cool to be the professional guy instead of the tech guy, I am not sure if your expectations are right. Even the hugest professional guy would sometimes be a tech guy, using those definitions.

 

I do agree though, that we should not sit passive and wait for instructions. That would be luxurious. Instead we must be proactive and ask for all the information we think we will need to fulfill their need for details and level of "correctness". Else we will be waiting a long time. A big part of our job is to ask for the right information. That is our responsibility. We deal with this in every project we do, while clients probably dont know what information you need except from facades and plans. So not only about teaching clients about the processes in a "non-bothersome" way, or questioning stuff in a non-offensive way, but also take action and collect the information you think you will need.

Edited June 19, 2015 by chroma
Corrected some typos

[Rich O]

Client always wants bright green trees that don't match the exposure or lighting conditions. Ughhhhhhh

[brendanrogers]

It really depends on what the clients after. Some of my clients leave it to me to decide and others want to have a say in the entire process.

For property marketing they generally want realistic shots that sell the home, so no fancy chair or table close-up artistic shots. I find they don't usually want to pay for those types of images. They want an exterior hero shot, interior shots and then a floor plan most of the time.

The client in my opinion is always right, bit of a cliche but they are the ones paying so its in my interest to make it to their liking so they come back as a repeat client. Regardless of what I think looks best.

For my personal folio however, I will change the images if I think I can improve on them.